[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180807094954.5137972d@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:49:54 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and
unify their usage
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:33:35 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> wrote:
> Thanks, also one more thing I noticed in your patch,
> lockdep_hardirqs_off needs to be called before all other probes but
> you're calling it after. This is why I registered it with INT_MAX:
>
> register_trace_prio_irq_disable(lockdep_hardirqs_off, NULL, INT_MAX);
>
> Without it you may get annotation warnings. Thanks,
Interesting. I was following the old way where we called the tracing
code before calling the lockdep code (all hard coded and not from
trace events). Is this have something to do with calling the code from
a tracepoint?
Do you have an example that could trigger the warning?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists